I think I understand the point you are trying to make and I apologize for not understanding your original comments. Where I was thinking if the can rocketing and landing to where it starts a separate fire your and John’s statement were of exploding cans. This is completely different from what I was addressing. It is funny how when you get an image in your head even though you read something completely different your brain pictures the event using your original thought. The factors you addressed should be evaluated by the investigator before reaching a conclusion.

As to your last statement, what would you consider supporting evidence you would need to eliminate the aerosol contents as a reason for a secondary fire.

What you were saying is the event you describe there would be a sudden failure of the container and where the container may or may not be propelled from the point of failure, the contents would be propelled outward for some distance. I also know in conducting simulations, it is possible to configure the simulation to support one’s findings. This is why any simulation being used to represent what took place be as close as possible to the original conditions. Yes, a container with just the right puncture, at just the right location can cause what you described. The question then becomes did that scenario accurately represent what took place on the incident being investigated.

I think you would agree it is important if an investigator is to reach the conclusion that secondary fires were caused by ignition of the contents from the aerosol container that the investigator know not only the general contents of the aerosol container but the percentage of each of the contents. He should also know the location of the point of failure and the size of the failure. He would need to know where the can was located and how its original location compared to where the secondary fire took place. Another question needing to be answered is, where the can was located in comparison to the fire was at the time of failure, and was there ignition of the contents at the time of failure. I would think to eliminate a second origin area base just on the fact that aerosol containers were found in the area is still speculation on the part of the investigator if there are no other factors to be considered before a conclusion based on the scientific method could be validated.

There is no question that a mechanical failure of the container can allow for the contents to be expelled. The distance would be regulated by the size of the opening, its geometrical orientation to other objects and the dissipation of the contents do to other factors such as being burned in a fire.

As you can see our opinions are really not that far apart. I must say thank you because you got me thinking and I have more information to consider where evaluating aerosol failures.